On 7 Jun, 17:44, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 20:38:00 +0100, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

what do you mean by equilibrium?

I am not certain that I have got it all completely straight in my head,
but
I have taken it to mean that all the elements making up the array and the
array itself are designed to be resonant about a particular frequency.

Hi Mike,

Then I take it by that response that the term equilibrium has no
meaning known to you in the context of antennas.

As
this type of antenna is intended for use with spread spectrum
communications,

Isn't that a bit of interpolation about spread spectrum? Arthur has,
to my knowledge, never used the term anywhere.

control over directivity is probably more of a consideration
than gain.

How do you distinguish directivity from gain?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard

As a result of searches into gaussian antennae, it quickly became apparent
that commercial versions of these devices are being manufactured for use at
GHz frequencies. These designs all seem to use modified horns as the
transmitting element. I have not yet found a device made up of discrete
elements. At these sorts of frequencies, discrete element lengths may well
be all pretty much the same dimensions. I suspect equilibrium may not be the
right term to use but resonance is obviously not quite right either. Arthur
may be unwilling to give out too many details of his antenna, perhaps
because he wants to protect any future patent application. I inferred the
spread spectrum usage from the types of communication links that are being
developed for wi-fi and other links at these super high frequencies. I do
not make a distinction between directivity and gain because I believe that
the term 'gaussian' essentially implies a single transmission lobe. Gain may
be obtained at the expense of breaking a transmitted signal into several
highly directional lobes, which is not what is wanted from this antenna. I
would consider the ability to provide a predictabe pattern of signal
coverage more important than the outright range to which the signal could be
broadcast, hence directivity rather than gain. A predictable pattern and
field strength is a useful property in avoiding interference in congested
urban areas with limited spectrum availability. Gaussian distribution may
also be taken as applying to the way in which the antenna can deal with a
range of frequencies, although this applies to pretty much any antenna,
filter or other resonant circuit you might care to mention.

Arts' antenna may be built and may perform as he predicts. If it doesn't
then we will all have learned from the experience whatever the outcome. That
is the principle of scientific advancement. The way that patent law deals
with prior disclosure of an invention, leads to a great deal of vague
terminology and description being used when an inventor is sounding out new
ideas. I'm sure we would all prefer to be given precise component values and
dimensions, but it appears that this is just not possible or advisable until
a patent is registered.

Regards

Mike G0ULI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike, don't take every thing as gospel in what they say.
Archives on the Gaussian antenna shows that I have disclosed all.
Others have chimed in with independent mathematical analysis.
Also provided a Gaussian antenna figures of an array for them to model
using
any program that they like. One new guy volunteered to check
it out but nobody would help him to prove his point.
Finally he got help from a anonymus person and he verified
the accuracy of the array. Immediately Roy of the old eznec
program which is now superseded by more extensive computor
programs that do more than his ever did and are also free
immediately wanted to change things so that elements were
in line at the same time blasting the gain of the the very
simple example I gave with minimul changes so that it
the concept would be easier to understand.
Anyway because of Roy' peeveness I then supplied a series
of results of elements that were resonant but which I
forced into a planar aproach and I know that you have seen those.
I gave those not to prove anything but just to supply information
that they continually beg for so they can give out a blast.
Even when they talk gain they never distinguish what
polarization they are looking for such that an antenna
designed for circular polarization is deemed a dud.
As far as patents are concerned, yes I have a few of them
and this is no exception, this was filed a long while ago
and I suppose it is published some where under the new guide lines.
I then got comments that we all knew that all the time
which is the normal reaction to patent requests. Then it was
anybody can get a patent. Then it was that it already has been
invented.,
Now it is we don't understand it and we don't believe the
mathematical analysis given by the good Doctor from M.I.T.
Now they are attacking what Poyntings Vector really intended to mean
and even questioning what equilibrium means in the context
of Poyntings vector. They now also say that all elements must be fed
and they must be held in line like a Yagi. And it goes on and on.
But I learned a lesson form Cecil more than a score of years
ago which was stay your ground where the antagonists to prove
their point make wilder and wilder claims that all the silent viewers
can see. As time goes by the statements become more sillier
and without technical technical content until they move right
to the end of the gang plank and end the thread and or try
to change the subject. Just like Cecil I bring up the subject
again reminding them by quoting past postings and what they said
and I get my jollies all over again knowing that all the World
is reading what has been said so they can make their own judgements.
That is what this net is all about Roy w7el said many years ago he
was going after anybody that said anything wrong about antennas
meaning every body who disagreed with him.
True he and Richard got rid of many experts that didn't need that
sort of harrasment.One was Jewish and you can imagine what was
said then. Others were antenna articlel writers, experimentors
and even antenna builders but they also have now gone.
But me, Art, learned a lesson from Cecil and we are both still
are here letting the World decide who are the suedo experts and who
are here for auguments sake which you can tell by what they say.
So now you know the story of over twenty years of this newsgroup
activity.
All of what I have said is still in the archives if some want
to verify what I have said. As far as Gaussian antennas are
concerned just put in the key words for yourself to find out
the real truth and confirm for yourself who is telling lies.
If there is anything that you are unsure of technical or
otherwise feel free to ask and I will be happy to share with all
what I know about Gaussian antennas again. But please check
out the archives and don't let the heckling get to you.
Regards and have a good evening.
Art